William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 117--19 1829 (2d ed.)

Reasons will be given hereafter for considering many of
the restrictions, contained in the amendments to the Constitution,
as extending to the states as well as to the United
States, but the nature of the writ of habeas corpus seems
peculiarly to call for this construction. It is the great remedy
of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment;
it is the mode by which the judicial power
speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of
every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional
laws or despotic governors. After erecting the distinct
government which we are considering, and after declaring
what should constitute the supreme law in every
state in the Union, fearful minds might entertain jealousies
of this great and all-controlling power, if some protection
against its energies when misdirected, was not provided
by itself.

The national code in which the writ of habeas corpus was
originally found, is not expressly or directly incorporated
into the Constitution.

If this provision had been omitted, the existing powers
under the state governments, none of whom are without
it, might be questioned, and a person imprisoned on a
mandate of the president or other officer, under colour of
lawful authority derived from the United States, might be
denied relief. But the judicial authority, whether vested in
a state judge, or a judge of the United States, is an integral
and identified capacity; and if congress never made any
provision for issuing writs of habeas corpus, either the state
judges must issue them, or the individual be without redress.
The Constitution seems to have secured this benefit
to the citizen by the description of the writ, and in an unqualified
manner admitting its efficacy, while it declares
that it shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety shall require it. This writ is believed
to be known only in countries governed by the common
law, as it is established in England; but in that country the
benefit of it may at any time be withheld by the authority
of parliament, whereas we see that in this country it cannot
be suspended even in cases of rebellion or invasion, unless
the public safety shall require it. Of this necessity the Constitution
probably intends, that the legislature of the
United States shall be the judges. Charged as they are with
the preservation of the United States from both those
evils, and superseding the powers of the several states in
the prosecution of the measures they may find it expedient
to adopt, it seems not unreasonable that this control over
the writ of habeas corpus, which ought only to be exercised
on extraordinary occasions, should rest with them. It is at
any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the
courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of
habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone
suspend their power, and that no state can prevent those
courts and judges from exercising their regular functions,
which are, however, confined to cases of imprisonment
professed to be under the authority of the United States.
But the state courts and judges possess the right of determining
on the legality of imprisonment under either authority.